You cannot fix bounds to the onward march of this great and growing country. You cannot fetter the limbs of a young giant. He will burst your chains. He will expand and grow, and increase, and extend civilization, Christianity, and liberal principles. Then, sir, if you cannot check the growth of the country in that direction, is it not the part of wisdom to look the danger in the face, and provide for an event you cannot avoid? I tell you, sir, you must provide for continuous lines of settlement from the Mississippi Valley to the Pacific Ocean. And in making this provision you must decide upon what principles the territory shall be organized; and in other words, whether the people shall be allowed to regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, according to the provisions of this bill, or whether the opposite doctrine of congressional interference is to prevail. Postpone it, if you will; but whenever you do act, this question must be met and decided.-Sheahan's Life of Douglas, p. 259.

SEWARD (N. Y.):

My position concerning legislative compromises is this, namely: personal, partizan, temporary, and subordinate questions, may lawfully be compromised; but principles can never be justly or wisely made the subjects of compromise. By principles I mean the elements in public questions of moral rights, political justice, and high national expediency. Does any honorable senator assert a different maxim on the subject of legislative compromise?

There is no peace in this world for compromisers; there is no peace for those who practice evasion; there is no peace in a republican land for any statesman but those who act directly, and boldly abide the popular judgment whenever it may be fairly and clearly and fully ascertained, without attempting to falsify the issue submitted, or to corrupt the tribunal.-Works, vol. IV, pp. 517, 611.

A. H. STEPHENS, to his brother Linton, 1850: In the message received to-day you will see that the policy of General Taylor is that the people inhabiting the new acquisitions shall come into the Union as States, without the adoption of territorial governments.

But the bearing of this policy on the great questions of the day is a matter still to be considered. Will the Slavery question be settled in this way? I think not. My deliberate opinion at this time, or the opinion I have formed from the best lights before me, is that it will be the beginning of an end which will be the sever

ance of the political bonds that unite the slave-holding and non-slaveholding States of this Union. I give you this view rather in opposition to the one I ventured to express on the evening of the 25th of December. I then looked to settlement and adjustment and a preservation of the Union; and as far as I then saw on the horizon, I think the opinion was correct. There will, perhaps, be a temporary settlement and a temporary quiet. But I have lately been taking a farther and a broader view of the future. When I look at the causes of the present discontent I am persuaded there will never again be harmony between the two great sections of the Union. When California and New Mexico and Oregon and Nebraska are admitted as States, then the majority in the Senate will be against us. The power will be with them to harass, annoy, and oppress. And it is a law of power to exert itself, as universal as it is a law of nature that nothing shall stand still. Cast your eye, then, a few years into the future, and see what images of strife are seen figuring on the boards! In the halls of Congress, nothing but debates about the crimes and the iniquity of slavery and the duty of the General Government to withhold all countenance of the unholy institution of human bondage. Can Southern men occupy seats in the halls of a Legislature with this constant reproach? It is not reasonable. It is more than I expect. It is more than human nature can expect. The present crisis may pass; the present adjustment may be made; but the great question of the permanence of slavery in the Southern States will be far from being settled thereby. And, in my opinion, the crisis of that question is not far ahead. The very palliatives now so soothingly administered do but more speedily develop the stealthly disease which is fast approaching the vitals. My opinion is that a dismemberment of this Republic is not among the improbabilities of a few years to come. In all my acts I shall look to that event. I shall do nothing to favor it or hasten, but I now consider it inevitable. . But I should not say much in praise of the Union. see no hope to the South from the Union. do not believe much in resolutions, any way. If I were now in the Legislature, I should introduce bills reorganizing the militia, for the establishment of a military school, the encouragement of the formation of volunteer companies, the creation of arsenals, of an armory, and an establishment for making gunpowder. In these lies our defence. I tell you the argument is exhausted; and if the South do not intend to be overrun with anti-slavery doctrines, they must, before no distant day, stand by their arms. My mind is made up; I am for the fight, if the country will back me. And if not we had better have no 'Resolutions,' and no gasconade. They will but add to our degradation.

I

My course shall be directed to the future. I shall regard with little interest the events of the intervening years. .. One other thought. Could the South maintain a separate political organization? On this I have thought a great deal. It has been the most perplexing question to my mind. The result of

my reflections is that she could, if her people be united. She would maintain her position, I think, better than the North. She has great elements of power.-Johnston-Browne, Life of A. H. Stephens, pp. 243-5.

THE EXCITING YEARS 1850-1860.

They threaten us with a great Northern party, and a general war upon the South. If they were not mere hucksters in politics-with only this peculiarity, that every man offers himself, instead of some other commodity, for sale-we should surmise that they might do what they threaten, and thus bring out the real triumph of the South, by making a dissolution of the Union necessary.

But they will do no such thing. They will threaten and utter a world of swelling self-glorification, and end by knocking themselves down to the highest bidder. To be sure, if they could make the best bargain by distroying the South, they would set about it without delay. But they cannot. They live upon us, and the South affords them the double glorification of an object for hatred and a field for plunder. How far they may be moved to carry their indignation at this time it is impossible to say; but we may be sure they will cool off just at the point when they discover that they can make nothing more out of it, and may lose.-Charleston Mercury, Quoted by Redpath, Echoes, p. 460.

It is vain to disguise it, the great issue of our day in this country is, Slavery or no Slavery. The present phase of that issue is, the extension or non-extension of the institution, the foundations of which are broad and solid in our midst. Whatever the general measurewhatever the political combinations-whatever the party movement-whatever the action of sections at Washington, the one single, dominant, and pervading idea, solving all leading questions, insinuating itself into every policy, drawing the horoscope of all aspirants, serving as a lever or fulcrum for every interest, class and individuality-a sort of directing fatality, is that master issue. As in despite of right and reason— of organisms and men-of interests and efforts, it has become per se political destiny-why not meet it? It controls the North, it controls the South-it precludes escape. It is at last and simply a question between the South and the remainder of the Union, as sections and as people. All efforts to give it other direction, to solve it by considerations other than those which pertain to them in their local character and fates, to divest it, to confound it with objects and designs of a general nature, is [sic] rendered futile. It has to be determined by the real parties, by their action in their character as sections-inchoate countries.-Charleston Evening News, Quoted in Redpath, p. 496.

The North has thus far carried the South on its shoulders, and this it is bound to do in all time to come. It has purchased its lands, maintained the fleets and armies required for its purposes, and stood between it and the public opinion of the world while maintaining the value of its commodities and giving value to its labor and land. During the whole of this period it has

borne unmeasured insolence, and has for the sake of peace, permitted its whole policy to be governed by a body of slaveholders amounting to but little more than a quarter of a million in number. It has made one compromise after another until at length the day of compromise has passed, and has given place to the day on which the South and the North-the advocates of Slave labor on the one side and Free labor on the other-are now to measure strength, and we trust it will be measured.-Redpath, Echoes, p. 512.

Falstaff was strong in words, but weak in action. So it is with the South, whose every movement betokens conscious weakness. For a quarter of a century past she has been holding conventions, at which it has been resolved that Norfolk, Charleston and Savannah should become great commercial cities, which obstinately they refuse to be. She has resolved upon all kinds of expedients for raising the price of cotton, which yet is lower by 1-3d. than it was ten years since. She has resolved to suppress discussion of slavery and the discussion is now more rife than ever before. She has resolved upon becoming strong and independent, but is now more dependent upon the forbearance of the world than in any time past. Under such circumstances, there need be small fear of her secession from the North, which has so long stood between her and ruin. The irritability of our Southern friends is evidence of conscious weakness, and while that irritability shall continue, the danger of dissolution will continue to be far distant.

The Union must be continued until at least the South shall have had the opportunity for taxing the North for the accomplishment of its projects. Until then the Union cannot be dissolved. Such being the case, the real friend of the Union is he who opposes the annexation of Cuba and Hayti, and the extension of slavery; and the real disunionist is he who advocates compliance with Southern demands. Thus far, all the measures adopted for the promotion of the Southern objects have been followed by increased abuse and increased threats of separation, and such will certainly be the case with all such future ones. To preserve the Union, it is required that the North shall insist on its rights. The only real disunionists of the country, north of Mason and Dixon's line, are the political doughfaces, like Pierce, Douglas, and Richardson, and the commercial doughfaces who sell themselves to the South for those objects on which Southern madmen now are bent.-Redpath, Echoes, 512-13.

An extract from an "Address on Climatology," before the Academy of Science at New Orleans: The institution of slavery operates by contrast and comparison; it elevates the tone of the superior, adds to its refinement, allows more time to cultivate the mind, exalts the standard in morals, manners, and intellectual endowments, operates as a safety valve for the evil-disposed, leaving the upper race power, while it preserves from degradation, in the scale of civiliza

tion, the inferior, which we see in their uniform destiny when left to themselves. The slaves constitute essentially the lowest class, and society is immeasurably benefited by having this class which constitutes the offensive fungus-the great cancer of civilized life-a vast burthen and expense to every community, under surveillance and control; and not only so, but under direction as an efficient agent to promote the general welfare and increase the wealth of the community. The history of the world furnishes no institution under similar management, where so much good actually results to the governors and to the governed as this in the Southern states of North America.-Quoted in Olmsted's "Cotton Kingdom," p. 277.

As an offset to the preceding let us hear from Wendell Phillips on "The Lesson of the Hour," Brooklyn, Nov. 1, 1859:

. . Somewhat briefly stated, such is the idea of American civilization; uncompromising faith-in the average selfishness, if you choose-of all classes, neutralizing each other, and tending towards that fair play that Saxons love. But it seems to me that, on all questions, we dread thought; we shrink behind something; we acknowledge ourselves unequal to the sublime faith of our fathers; and the exhibition of the last twenty years and of the present state of public affairs is, that Americans dread to look their real position in the face. . . . They have no idea of absolute right. They were born since 1787, and absolute right means the truth diluted by a strong decoction of the Constitution of 1789. They breathe that atmosphere. They do not want to sail outside of it; they do not attempt to reason outside of it. Poisoned with printer's ink, or choked with cotton dust, they stare at absolute right, as the dream of madmen. For the last twenty years, there has been going on, more or less heeded and understood in various states, an insurrection of ideas against the limited, cribbed, cabined, isolated American civilization interfering to restor absolute right. . . . Thank God, I am not a citizen. You will remember, all of you, citizens of the United States, that there was not a Virginia gun fired at John Brown. . . . You shot him. Sixteen marines to whom you pay $8 a month-your own representatives, . . sixteen men, with the Vulture of the Union above them-your representatives! It was the covenant with death and agreement with hell which you call the Union of the States, that took the old man by the throat with a private hand. . . .-Redpath, Echoes.

Let us hear LINCOLN speak:

If we would first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do, and how to do it. We are now far into the fifth year since a policy [Kansas-Nebraska bill] was initiated with the avowed object and confident promise of putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion, it will not cease

until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. "A house divided against itself cannot stand." I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved I do not expect the house to fall-but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. . . -Lincoln, Works, I., p. 240.

The Lincoln-Douglas debate, 1858:

I do not question Mr. Lincoln's conscientious belief that the negro was made his equal, and hence is his brother, but for my own part I do not regard the negro as my equal, and positively deny that he is my brother or any kin to me whatever. . . . He [Lincoln] holds that the negro was born his equal and yours, and that he was endowed with equality by the Almighty, and that no human law can deprive him of these rights which were guaranteed to him by the Supreme Ruler of the universe. Now, I do not believe that the Almighty ever intended the negro to be the equal of the white man. . . . He belongs to an inferior race, and must occupy an inferior position. I do not hold that because the negro is our inferior, therefore he ought to be a slave. By no means can such a conclusion be drawn from what I have said. On the contrary, I hold that humanity and Christianity both require that the negro shall have and enjoy every right, every privilege, and every immunity consistent with the safety of the society in which he lives. Douglas, in the Lincoln-Douglas Debates, Works, Lincoln, I., p. 284.

While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. . . . I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races-that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.-Lincoln, in Lincoln-Douglas Debates, Lincoln's Works, I., p. 369.

QUESTIONS.

1. What did J. Q. Adams think of slavery? 2. What did he expect to be necessary in order to secure its abolition? 3. Was his plan statesmanlike? 4. Were his predictions in part fulfilled? 5. Did he attempt in later years the work he here lays out for some man? 6. How did Hayne differ from Adams? 7. Did he see danger in the questions? 8. What remedy did he propose? 9. How do you explain the different positions?

10. Investigate to see whether Hayne had a constitutional foundation for his position. 11. Why did the northern slave states desire the continuance of the system? 12. What profit came to Virginia from the system? 13. Would Virginia naturally favor or oppose the slave trade?

1. What is meant by "incendiary documents"? 2. How were they disposed of in the south? 3. Was such a method right, constitutional? 4. What requests did the south make of northern states regarding these documents? 5. Were they right in demanding their suppression? 6. How did President Jackson propose to deal with the question? 7. Would his plan have been constitutional? 8. What was the real difficulty?

1. Find out what the constitution says in regard to the right of petition. 2. Find out the nature of the petitions sent to Congress. 3. What did Mr. King think of the petitions? 4. What mistake did the south make in opposing the reception of petitions? 5. Name points in Calhoun's argument. 6. What view does he take in regard to slavery? 7. Had the south always held the same views? 8. Did he hold slavery in the abstract to be a good? 9. What prediction did he make? 10. Have his predictions been fulfilled? 11. What objection, if any, to the "gag" rule? 12. What conclusion can you draw from the various votes on the "gag" rules?

1. How did Garrison regard the constitution? Why? 2. Was he a secessionist? 3. How does the Buffalo

Platform differ in theory from Garrison and Phillips? 4. How did the Democratic Review believe slavery would end? 5. What theories are given in various extracts in regard to method of control or government of the territories? 6. How did Webs.er hold the character of the institutions of the territories had been fixed? 7. How did Seward regard compromises? 8. Was he right? 9. If so what do you say of the men who made the constitution? 10. What end did A. H. Stephens predict for the Union? 11. Compare views of Stephens and Phillips and Garrison. 12. How explain their views?

1. Did the north and the south understand each other? 2. What qualities did the south believe characterized the people of the north? 3. What did the north think of the southern people? 4. Why was Cuba wished? 5. Did the south believe slavery right? 6. What arguments given to prove their view? 7. What did Wendell Phillips think of the character of the American people in 1859? 8. Was he right? 9. What difference in tone between Lincoln and Phillips? 10. How did Lincoln hope to end slavery? 11. How did Lincoln regard the negro? 12. How Douglas? 13. What difference in view between the two?

1. Make an outline covering this whole period. 2. Write an essay on the reasons for the contradictory views of the northern and southern statesmen. H. W. CALDWELL.

The Histories of Polybius. Translated from the text of F. Hultsch by Evelyn S. Schuckburgh, M. A. 2 vols. New York, 1889.

N the MONTHLY for February, extracts were given from Polybius upon the Roman constitution at the time of its greatest effectiveness. This month it is my purpose to show, by extracts from the same writer, what the character of the Roman people was, and how the constitution stood the test of a great foreign war in which Rome was matched against a foeman worthy of her steel. Polybius says of this period that the Roman "institutions were as yet in their original integrity," and if one would obtain "a fair view of the national characteristics," one should examine them at this time.

It is my intention, in the following numbers of the MONTHLY, to treat of life under the decaying republic, as shown by Sallust, Cicero, and others; to draw a picture of life under the empire from the letters of Pliny, and to conclude with extracts from the intitutes of Justinian, illustrative of Roman law, that most typical product of Roman civilization.

In the January and February numbers of the MONTHLY, Something has been said about the life of Polybius, and the value of the evidence that he offers us. It remains to add a word upon the value of the extracts employed in this study.

Polybius was not a contemporary of the First Punic War, but he was able to converse with the sons of the men who fought in the war and might even have spoken with some of the survivors of that generation. We know that he had before him contemporary accounts of the war written by Romans and Carthaginians. He refers to the work of the Carthaginian Philinus and the Roman Fabius, "who bore the reputation of writing with the most complete knowledge about it (the war)" but adds that they have "given us an inadequate representation of the truth." (I, 14.) He certainly had other sources of information, for when these two writers make statements that "nothing can reconcile," he is able to control them.

THE BEGINNING OF THE WAR. Thus were the Mamertines first deprived of support

from Rhegium, and then subjected, from causes which I have just stated, to a complete defeat on their own account. Thereupon some of them betook themselves to the protection of the Carthaginians, and were for putting themselves and their citadel into their hands; while others set about sending an embassy to Rome to offer a surrender of their city and to beg assistance on the ground of the ties of race which united them. The Romans were long in doubt. The inconsistency of sending such aid seemed manifest. A little while ago they had put some of their own citizens to death, with the extreme penalties of the law, for having broken faith with the people of Rhegium; and now so soon afterwards to assist the Mamertines, who had done precisely the same to Messene as well as Rhegium, involved a breach of equity very hard to justify. But while fully alive to these points, they yet saw that Carthaginian aggrandisement was not confined to Lybia, but had embraced many districts in Iberia as well; and that Carthage was, besides, mistress of all the islands in the Sardinian and Tyrrhenian seas; they were beginning, therefore, to be exceedingly anxious lest, if the Carthaginians became masters of Sicily also, they should find them very dangerous and formidable neighbors, surrounding them as they would on every side, and occupying a position which commanded all the coasts of Italy. Now it was clear that, if the Mamertines did not obtain the assistance they asked for, the Carthaginians would very soon reduce Sicily. For should they avail themselves of the voluntary offer of Messene and become masters of it, they were certain before long to crush Syracuse also, since they were already lords of nearly the whole of the rest of Sicily. The Romans saw all this, and felt that it was absolutely necessary not to let Messene slip, or allow the Carthaginians to secure what would be like a bridge to enable them to cross into Italy. (I, 10.)

In spite of protracted deliberations, the conflict of motives proved too strong, after all, to allow of the Senate coming to any decision; for the inconsistency of aiding the Messenians appeared to them to be evenly balanced by the advantages to be gained by doing so. The people, however, had suffered much from the previous wars, and wanted some means of repairing the losses which they had sustained in every department. Besides these national advantages to be gained by the war, the military commanders suggested that individually they would get manifest and important benefits from it.

They accordingly voted in favor of giving aid. The Roman Consul, Appius, for his part, gallantly crossed the strait by night and got into Messene. But he found that the enemy had completely surrounded the town and were vigorously pressing on the attack; and he concluded on reflection that the seige could bring him neither credit nor security so long as the enemy commanded land as well as sea. He accordingly first endeavored to relieve the Mamertines from the contest altogether by sending embassies to both of the attacking forces. Neither of them received the proposals, and at last, from sheer necessity, he

made up his mind to hazard an engagement, and that he would begin with the Syracusans. So he led out his forces and drew them up for the fight; nor was the Syracusan backward in accepting the challenge, but descended simultaneously to give him battle. After a prolonged struggle, Appius got the better of the enemy and chased the opposing forces right up to their entrenchments. The result of this was that Appius, after stripping the dead, retired into Messene again, while Hiero, with a foreboding of the final result, only waited for night-fall to beat a hasty retreat to Syracuse. (I, 11.)

Next morning, when Appius was assured of their flight, his confidence was strengthened, and he made up his mind to attack the Carthaginians without delay. Accordingly he issued orders to the soldiers to dispatch their preparations early, and at daybreak commenced his sally. Having succeeded in engaging the enemy, he killed a large number of them, and forced the rest to fly precipitately to the neighboring towns. These successes sufficed to raise the seige of Messene; and thenceforth he scoured the territory of the Syracusans and their allies with impunity and laid it waste without finding anyone to dispute the possession of the open country with him; and finally he sat down before Syracuse itself and laid seige to it. (I, 12.)

QUESTIONS.

1. Did the Romans attach much importance to good faith in dealing with other states? 2. What do you think of their reasons for action in this case? 3. Enumerate the lower motives that caused them to act. 4. Enumerate all the excellent traits of character brought out in this first struggle and indicate the value of each.

SIEGE OF AGRIGENTUM.

I shall, however, endeavor to describe with somewhat more care the first war which arose between the Romans and the Carthaginians for the possession of Sicily. For it would not be easy to mention any war that lasted longer than this one; nor one in which the preparations made were on a larger scale, or the efforts made more sustained, or the actual engagements more numerous, or the reverses sustained on either side more signal. Moreover, the two states themselves were at the precise period of their history when their institutions were as yet in their original integrity, their fortunes still at a moderate level, and their forces on an equal footing, so that those who wish to gain a fair view of the national characteristics and resources of the two had better base their comparison upon this war rather than upon those which came after. (I, 13.) On the Roman side a change of commanders had now taken place. The consuls who made the treaty with Hiero had gone home, and their successors, Lucius Postumius and Quintus Mamilius, were come Sicily with their legions. Observing the measures which the Carthaginians were taking, and the forces they were concentrating at Agrigentum, they made up their minds to take that matter in hand and strike a

to